决心可以表，利率不能加

支持我们的工作，请点击阅读原文认购我们的会员。早上8点我会在刘郁的早间晨会做本次会议的快评，可报名聆听。

观感：这本该是一场平淡的会议，却因为Citadel两位分析师的加息call变得扣人心弦。讽刺的是，沃什在发布会问答上图穷匕见，有意无意地一边“叠甲"表决心一边透露对当前双重使命目标（直接否定菲利普斯曲线的就业通胀取舍）和通胀目标的改动意向（直言一月的策略重申有改动空间），让发布会后半段变得令人困惑且略有张力，笔者认为，如果沃什在没有工作组成果的前提下持续做出如此抽象的市场沟通，恐怕只会引来债市义勇军甚至其他上级的指摘，另外，此次会议上支持按兵不动的其他票委也可能重新审视自己是否站错了边……

背景

本次会议前Citadel的两位宏观策略师（Frank和）营造了可能提前加息的鹰派氛围，而哈塞特则在会议前一小时“暗示”沃什会做出正确的决定。

声明

仅一处无关紧要的修辞变化（“重申”变为“延续”），相比于上次会议出现三票反对票且支持本次会议加息，分别是 Beth M. Hammack、Neel Kashkari和Lorie K. Logan。

发布会开场白

我作为主席出席的第二次联邦公开市场委员会（FOMC）会议很快就到来了。现在说这是一种"连续性"（a streak）或许还为时过早，但我们的讨论再一次是协作且富有建设性的（collegial and constructive）。能与如此能干、专注使命、并且和我一样决心提升美联储绩效的同事共事，我深感幸运。

正如各位所知，今天委员会以9票赞成、3票反对的表决结果，决定将联邦基金利率目标区间维持在3.5%至3.75%。委员会将继续执行在银行体系中保持充裕准备金的政策。

经济表现出令人瞩目的韧性（resilience），即便面对近期的冲击，各项趋势依然积极，显示出稳健的增长。就业增长与劳动力增长保持同步，失业率变化不大。通货膨胀相对于委员会2%的目标仍然偏高。委员会依然坚定不移（resolute）。各位可能已经听过这句话，但我们将实现价格稳定。

与以往一样，政策声明只陈述事实，避免作出预测——我们认为，在当前这种不确定的时期，这种做法尤为审慎。然而，不确定性并不意味着缺乏清晰度。对一些家庭、企业和市场专业人士而言，五年的高通胀让他们产生了一种错误印象，以为美联储存在某种高于2%的"隐性目标"。但这种印象很难消除。

我要重申：不存在宽松的通胀目标，也不存在宽松的隐性目标。（There is no soft inflation target. There is no soft implicit target. ）在本届委员会任期内绝不会如此。目标只有一个，那就是2%。

我的FOMC同事中没有一个人对此抱有幻想（illusion）。我们已经开启了新的篇章，我们清楚地知道，五年多的通胀高企不可能在九周内、或靠某一个月温和的价格下降就被治愈。这个美联储不会动摇。我们的信誉建立在履行职责、兑现承诺的基础之上。美国人民有理由对此抱有期待，因为我们国家的繁荣有赖于此。

对在座的各位常驻记者而言，今天的评估或许听起来似曾相识，但我们的讨论、政策和策略绝非一成不变、机械重复（inertial）。

有两项经济动态值得特别指出。第一项是自上次会议以来——也就是42天前——发生的一个非常显著的变化：整条美国国债收益率曲线上，名义收益率和实际收益率都出现了大幅上升。事实上，两次FOMC会议之间市场利率的部分涨幅，在过去二十年中都名列前茅，大致处于最高的十分之一区间。

但如果委员会并未改变政策，那么究竟发生了什么？在此期间，市场的关注焦点集中在真实数据和真实经济动态上。价格实时对新出现的信息做出反应，前瞻指引的减少也可能是其中一个因素。市场参与者正在学会"看球而非看裁判"，市场价格将继续按照他们认为合适的方向和幅度做出反应。

在我看来，这是一种向好的转变，而且我们才刚刚开始。毕竟，中央银行不必事事、处处都成为关注的中心。我理解外界希望委员会不断给出预测和评论的愿望，但就我们而言，我们需要观察市场对各项动态做出的直接、未经过滤的反应。

我要强调的是，当然，本委员会所做的决定至关重要，在必要且适当的时候，我们将毫不犹豫地采取行动。

第二项经济动态，是我本月在国会监督听证会上提到过的，但仍值得在此重申。当前经济最引人注目的特征，是企业投资的强劲增长。高科技资本支出的激增令人瞩目，但这并不意味着美联储的工作因此变得更容易。在与人工智能相关的高科技设备与软件类别中，最新数据显示，四季度增长率接近20%。这有助于支撑制造业产出的良好势头。更广泛地说，资本支出正在为未来的增长打下基础。尽管如此，其对供给端影响的确切时机和幅度仍然难以预测。

FOMC会议产生的是政策决定，但同样重要的，是对最关键的重大问题进行坦诚的讨论。这也是美联储新篇章中的一项优先事项。

在本次会议中，我们进行了热烈的讨论，主要围绕四个问题展开，我在此逐一列举。

第一，我们花了大量时间讨论过去五年高通胀对当前政策形势的影响。借用一句老话来说："过去真的已经过去了吗？"

第二，我和同事们审视了近年来的一系列经济冲击：疫情引发的供应链紧张、军事冲突、能源供应中断、关税税率的大幅上调，当然，还有人工智能相关投资的激增。这些冲击的来源各不相同。那么，它们对产出和就业的影响，是否也各不相同？

第三，我们讨论了与此相关的一个问题，即由这些冲击所引发的价格上涨。举例来说，企业资本支出的繁荣，正在推高内存芯片和逻辑芯片、以及相关人工智能设备的价格。这些变化，究竟是预示着更广泛的通胀动态，还是我们只是因为它们处于聚光灯下，才格外关注它们？

最后，我们讨论了实现价格稳定的货币政策工具与策略。美联储一贯认为，利率政策应是其主要的货币政策工具。那么，我们从资产负债表中获得了多少宽松效果？

在所有这些方面，美联储的工作都在稳步推进。我们正在提出正确的问题，而在这个至关重要的时刻，我们深知，找到正确的答案，将决定太多事情的走向。

当然，各位记者想必也带着各自的问题而来，那么现在，就让我们进入提问环节。

问答环节

主持人：We'll start with Steve.
主持人：我们先请史蒂夫提问。

史蒂夫：Thank you, for taking our questions, Mr. Chairman. You've had a couple months now, or nine weeks or whatever number it is, to see the markets behave in the absence of forward guidance. I'm wondering if you could tell me, what message are you getting from the markets as to where policy ought to be right now?

史蒂夫：谢谢您回答我们的提问，主席先生。在没有前瞻指引的情况下，您已经有两个月、或者说九周、或者不管究竟是多长时间，来观察市场的表现。我想请问，关于当前政策应该处在什么位置，您从市场那里读到了什么信息？

沃什主席：Officially it's eight weeks and four days I think, but I'm not counting. The message from markets is the message from markets. What I've really been trying to do, Steve, as I think you appreciate, your colleagues appreciate, is getting an unfiltered message from markets, getting a direct message, letting buyers and sellers meet at prices for Treasuries, for the foreign-exchange value of the dollar and then trying to judge for ourselves what does that mean about our remit? How are we doing on inflation? How are we doing on employment? We're trying not to interfere with that market signal. It's part of the reason why we've been somewhat spare in our words and pulled back from forward guidance, so they're reacting to events I would say much more directly over the 42 days since we last met. This is a good thing. As I mentioned in the prepared remarks we've seen material tightening not just in nominal rates but in real rates too, and we're observing it, we're trying to stay out of that because many of you might be interested in our reaction function, we're interested in the reaction of financial markets.

沃什主席：准确地说，我想是八周零四天，不过我并没有在数日子。

市场传递的信息，就是市场传递的信息。史蒂夫，我一直在努力做的事——我想你和你的同行们都能理解——是获得来自市场的、未经过滤的信息，获得直接的信息：让买方和卖方在国债价格上、在美元汇价上直接成交，然后由我们自己来判断，这对我们的法定职责意味着什么？我们在通胀上做得怎么样？在就业上做得怎么样？

我们努力不去干扰这个市场信号。这也是我们言辞比较克制、并且收回前瞻指引的部分原因。所以在上次会议之后的这42天里，我认为市场对各类事件的反应要直接得多。

这是好事。正如我在开场白中提到的，我们看到了实质性的紧缩，不只是名义利率，实际利率也一样。我们在观察它，也努力不去插手——因为你们很多人可能对我们的反应函数感兴趣，而我们感兴趣的，是金融市场的反应。

史蒂夫：I get that, Mr. Chairman, and I guess the follow-up question is, if the markets are talking to you what do you hear them saying and if it's real rates are higher, it would suggest that's where the funds rate ought to go.

史蒂夫：我明白，主席先生。那我追问一句：如果市场在跟您对话，您听到它在说什么？如果实际利率走高了，那似乎意味着联邦基金利率也应该往那个方向走。

沃什主席：I'm sorry, it's your question. So interpreting markets is an imperfect business. We Central Bankers like market pros can think these things are over-determined but let me offer some speculation. First, as we said in the FOMC statement that you got at 2:00, the economy output is solid. CapEx and productivity are strong. Labor markets, solid, steady. The bond market, the Treasury market seems to be saying that as well. If I were try to break down and aggregate the Treasury market signals I wouldn't be able to do it perfectly but the bond market is saying many of those same things and that's why we're seeing a tightening both in nominals and in reals even while at some level, we haven't done much in 42 days, the markets have done quite a bit.

沃什主席：抱歉，是你在提问。解读市场从来不是一门精确的活儿。我们这些央行官员跟市场专业人士一样，容易把这些事情想得"过度确定"，不过我可以做些推测。首先，正如我们在下午两点公布的FOMC声明中所说，经济产出稳健，资本开支和生产率强劲，劳动力市场稳固、平稳。债券市场、国债市场似乎也在传达同样的信息。如果要我把国债市场的信号逐一拆解、再加总起来，我做不到完美，但债券市场传达的很多内容与此一致。这也是为什么我们看到名义利率和实际利率都在收紧——尽管从某种意义上说，我们在这42天里没做什么，市场却做了不少。

《金融时报》：Thank you, Financial Times. You seem to have got the family fight you're after at this meeting, we saw three dissents. Could you characterize the arguments that those Dissenters put forward please and tell us a little bit why you weren't persuaded by them at this stage?

《金融时报》：谢谢。您在这次会议上似乎如愿以偿地打了一场"家庭内战"，我们看到了三张反对票。能否请您描述一下这些持异议者提出的论点，并谈谈在现阶段您为什么没有被他们说服？

沃什主席：I guess I shouldn't give you their best arguments I'll give you some others. So you're right. I asked for a good family fight and I got one. That's the purpose. That's the design feature. I come into this meeting, even this press conference, heartened by what I've experienced the last two days. Most of our discussion were on the big questions that matter to the conduct of monetary policy. We didn't sort of hide from them. We weren't scared of them. There was a lot more interaction between and among my colleagues. It was a real family fight. My view, which you've long heard, is what's a better way to get policy right? That's our North Star. So there was a lot of agreement that I heard that we have the powers, the tools, and the authority to deliver stable prices. No walking back from our responsibilities. There was a large majority support for the decision that we made in the room but I also want to leave you, Clair, with one other impression. There's nothing inertial about that discussion. It was an active, robust discussion about what's in the full range of what we can do and might want to do in the period ahead. You characterized accurately there was a disagreement about a decision today. I would say that doesn't capture the full essence of the discussion. The path to Central Bank heaven requires delivering on our remit and these days that means delivering on price stability. I wouldn't measure that path in 42 days or any one particular meeting and I came out of that meeting even more confident this is the right team to win the battle against high inflation.

沃什主席：我想我不该替他们说出最有力的论点，我就说说其他一些吧。你说得对，我要的就是一场像样的"家庭内战"，而我得到了。这就是目的，这是制度设计上的特征。我带着过去两天的经历走进这场会议、乃至这场发布会，心里是受到鼓舞的。我们的讨论大多集中在对货币政策操作真正重要的大问题上。我们没有回避它们，我们不惧怕它们。同事之间的互动比以往多得多。这是一场真正的"家庭内战"。我的看法你们早就听过：怎样才能把政策做对？这才是我们的北极星。我听到的一个高度共识是：我们拥有实现价格稳定的权力、工具和授权。我们不会从自己的责任上后退。会议室里对我们所作的决定有很大多数的支持。但克莱尔，我也想给你留下另一个印象：那场讨论毫无惯性可言。它是一场积极、激烈的讨论，讨论的是我们在未来一段时间能做什么、可能想做什么的全部选项范围。你说今天在决定上存在分歧，这个描述是准确的。但我要说，这并不能概括讨论的全部实质。通往"央行天堂"的道路，要求我们兑现自己的职责，而在当下，这意味着兑现价格稳定。我不会用42天或任何某一次会议来衡量这条路。走出那间会议室时，我比以往更加确信：这是一支能打赢高通胀这场仗的队伍。

克莱尔：How much do you think not going in July was down to the core CPI print for June?

克莱尔：您认为7月按兵不动，在多大程度上是因为6月的核心CPI数据？

沃什主席：In two words, "not much." I'd like to believe that the Committee shares my views which is the historic problem with data dependence is the data and the dependence. We are not relying on any one individual piece of data as cover or as an excuse, or as validation. What I care about and what I think the Committee cares about is trends on the data. Sure, we've got some encouraging inflation data. I think at the meeting 42 days ago I said something like 63 months of inflation above-target. I didn't say 64, though the final calculation might be a close one, so we'll be watching inflation data over the period ahead, but I also don't want you to leave the mistaken impression that we're breathlessly waiting for that. I've called for a task force to revisit both the private and public data we use to make our decision-making. That task force is out doing their work. I'll be checking back in with them the next couple of weeks, but I wouldn't say we overly relied on any one piece of data, including that data which surprised some a couple of weeks ago.

沃什主席：两个字："不多"。我愿意相信委员会认同我的看法：所谓"数据依赖"，其历史性的问题就出在"数据"和"依赖"这两件事本身上。我们不会拿任何单一数据当挡箭牌、当借口，或当作自我印证。我关心的、也是我认为委员会关心的，是数据的趋势。当然，我们看到了一些令人鼓舞的通胀数据。我记得在42天前那次会议上，我说过通胀已连续63个月高于目标之类的话。我没有说64个月，尽管最终的计算可能会很接近。所以我们会持续关注未来一段时间的通胀数据，但我也不希望你们带走一个错误印象，以为我们正屏息等待某个数据。我已经要求成立一个工作组，重新审视我们决策所依赖的私营部门和公共部门数据。该工作组正在开展工作，未来几周我会去了解进展。但我不会说我们过度依赖了任何单一数据，包括几周前让一些人感到意外的那个数据。

尼尔·欧文（Axios）：Hi, Chairman Warsh, Neil Irwin with Axios. Thanks for taking our questions. So the fed funds rate is about 75 basis points above the two year yield, markets have to tighten 100 basis points below most rule estimates, why should rates not be higher today?

尼尔·欧文（Axios）：您好，沃什主席，我是Axios的尼尔·欧文，谢谢您回答提问。联邦基金利率目前比两年期国债收益率高约75个基点，而市场仍需收紧、比大多数政策规则的估算值低100个基点——为什么今天利率不应该更高？

沃什主席：There's a lot in there, Neil. So rates are higher today than they were 42 days ago. Markets have made decisions, because we stepped back in part from trying to influence those. Market judgments have moved up on what nominal rates are across the Treasury curve. That doesn't mean we take them as by dictation but we're observing them so I think it's a mischaracterization to say that markets haven't reacted because we didn't move too. Markets are reacting in real time. In the period ahead, we've got important decisions to make about the policy rate. Markets in the intervening period I think have quite a bit of decisions to make. I'll see if I can put it this way. Monetary policy matters not just by what we say, or even what we do. Monetary policy matters by how it affects the real economy and these prices that we see in financial markets is one of the many ways in which it affects the real economy. We'll be continuing to watch that market information, see how it responds to incoming events, and that can help inform our decision-making when we meet in seven or eight weeks.
沃什主席：尼尔，你这问题里内容很多。首先，今天的利率比42天前更高了。市场自己做出了判断，部分原因正是我们退后一步、不再试图去影响它们。市场对整条国债收益率曲线上名义利率的判断已经上移。这并不意味着我们把市场的意见当成命令来接受，但我们在观察它们。所以我认为，说"因为我们没动、所以市场没有反应"是一种误读。市场是在实时反应的。在未来一段时间，我们在政策利率上有重要决定要做。而在这中间的时期，我认为市场自己也有不少判断要做。我试着这样表述：货币政策之所以重要，不只在于我们说了什么，甚至不止在于我们做了什么。货币政策的重要性在于它如何影响实体经济，而我们在金融市场看到的这些价格，正是它影响实体经济的众多渠道之一。我们会继续观察这些市场信息，观察它们如何对新出现的事件作出反应，这能为我们七八周后开会时的决策提供参考。

尼尔：How would you characterize in the family fight the last couple of days of you and the other eight members who wanted to hold, was that a strong conviction or a hair-trigger close call on holding versus tightening?

尼尔：在过去两天的这场"家庭内战"中，您和另外八位主张按兵不动的委员，是出于强烈的信念，还是在"维持不变"与"收紧"之间只差一线的艰难抉择？

沃什主席：I think that the vote was 9-3. The broader discussion to my ear, over the course of the last days, showed a lot of agreement on the hard questions. The four questions I raised at the outset about what's really happening in the economy with the shocks and absent the shocks. What are our tools and our capabilities? What's the effect on prices on output? I heard a lot of commonality on the questions. Were there different leans on the answers? You bet there was. So could people come to different conclusions? Absolutely, but my own judgment is this is a period of watchful thinking, not watchful waiting and I think the score on that vote was unanimous.

沃什主席：我记得表决结果是9比3。就我听来，过去几天更广泛的讨论显示，在那些难题上存在大量共识。我在一开始提出了四个问题：在有冲击和没有冲击的情况下，经济究竟在发生什么？我们的工具和能力是什么？对价格、对产出的影响是什么？在这些问题上，我听到了很多共同点。在答案上是否有不同的倾向？那是当然。所以，人们会不会得出不同的结论？绝对会。但我个人的判断是：这是一个"警觉地思考"的时期，而不是"警觉地等待"的时期——而在这一点上，我认为那次表决是全票一致的。

主持人：Colby.
主持人：请科尔比提问。

科尔比·史密斯（《纽约时报》）：Thank you, Colby Smith with the New York Times. You've mentioned looking at the Fed's policy tools is one element of a three-prong strategy to address the inflation problem so I'm curious how you view the effectiveness of those tools? If inflation is too high and not coming down, is the best remedy to raise interest rates?

科尔比·史密斯（《纽约时报》）：谢谢，我是《纽约时报》的科尔比·史密斯。您提到，审视美联储的政策工具是应对通胀问题的三管齐下战略之一，我想知道您如何看待这些工具的有效性？如果通胀过高且降不下来，最好的对策是加息吗？

沃什主席：So that was the discussion the last two days. Is that the dominant remedy? If inflation continues to be elevated through the forecast period, interest rates could well be part of that solution, but I wouldn't say it's in isolation. I tried to describe in my remarks today a point that I made into the oversight committees a couple of weeks ago. I think there was a mistaken impression by some in financial markets, by some households and businesses, that Central Bankers like me, we set a 2% inflation target but maybe we were more tolerable of a somewhat higher inflation target and in economics we would call that the "revealed preference" so might it have been rational for people to think, well their inflation target's somewhat higher. What I heard in the last two days, what I've heard in the eight and a half weeks is "no." We will deliver the 2% inflation target. That is the Committee's definition of price stability. So one way absent the tools that you reference, to ensure that we get there, is ensure that expectations are centered around the right number and I think we made some progress on that. I am not suggesting we're done on that. It's worth reiterating, and ultimately, the business we're in, Colby, is performance. We're going to be judged by how we perform and that's what we intend to do. The inflation target, making clear expectations is one part of it. Making sure we demonstrate we're responsible for it. We're not blaming is another, and our policy tools like you referenced is the third and equally consequential part.

沃什主席：这正是过去两天讨论的内容。加息是不是最主要的对策？如果通胀在整个预测期内持续处于高位，利率完全可能是解决方案的一部分，但我不会说它是孤立起作用的。我今天在讲话中试图阐述一个几周前我在国会监督委员会上讲过的观点。我认为，金融市场上的一些人、一些家庭和企业存在一种错误印象：像我这样的央行官员设定了2%的通胀目标，但也许我们对稍高一些的通胀目标其实更能容忍——在经济学上我们称之为"显示性偏好"。于是人们可能会理性地认为：他们的通胀目标其实要更高一些。过去两天我听到的、过去八周半我听到的，是"不"。我们将实现2%的通胀目标。那就是委员会对价格稳定的定义。所以，撇开你提到的那些工具不谈，确保我们达成目标的一条途径，就是确保预期锚定在正确的数字上。我认为我们在这方面取得了一些进展。我不是说这件事已经做完了，它值得反复重申。归根结底，科尔比，我们干的是"交付业绩"这一行。我们会以业绩受到评判，而这正是我们打算做的。通胀目标、把预期讲清楚，是其中一部分；证明我们对此负责、我们不推诿责任，是第二部分；而你提到的政策工具，是同样重要的第三部分。

科尔比：How are you factoring the fact that a large portion of the inflation overshoot is being caused by supply shocks as it's mentioned again in the statement. Does that blunt the effectiveness of rate hikes in your view?

科尔比：声明中再次提到，通胀超调有很大一部分是由供给冲击造成的，您如何把这一点纳入考量？在您看来，这是否削弱了加息的效果？

沃什主席：First on the premise of your question. It was almost as if you were listening to our discussion in the last day and a half. A lot of our focus was on trying to understand and identify underlying inflation dynamics amid shocks. We take these shocks seriously. There have been a series of them that have been hitting this economy. We're not looking through them and saying oh, they don't matter, but we're trying to understand is to what extent are these shocks broadening in their effects, broadening in their impact on prices that are quite far removed from it. Our goal is to have growth that is broadening and inflation that is becoming more limited, more circumscribed. I'll be the first to admit the shocks make this job and this policy conjuncture a little tougher but it's one of the chief questions we've asked ourselves and around the room people have different views on it. I tend to think in the coming months we're going to refine that view and have a better judgment and we're going to have market prices try to help inform it too.

沃什主席：先说你问题的前提。你几乎就像是在旁听我们过去一天半的讨论一样。

我们的很多注意力，正是放在理解和识别冲击之下的潜在通胀动态上。我们认真对待这些冲击。一连串冲击一直在击打这个经济体。我们不会"透过"它们、说这些都无关紧要；我们要弄清的是，这些冲击的影响在多大程度上正在扩散，扩散到与冲击本身相距甚远的那些价格上。我们的目标是：增长面在扩大，通胀面在收窄、在被限定住。我会第一个承认，这些冲击让这份工作、让当前的政策处境更棘手了一些。但这正是我们向自己提出的首要问题之一，而在那间会议室里，大家看法各不相同。我倾向于认为，在接下来几个月里，我们会不断修正这个看法、形成更好的判断，我们也会让市场价格来帮助我们判断。

主持人：Edward.
主持人：请爱德华提问。

爱德华·劳伦斯（福克斯商业频道）：Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Edward Lawrence from Fox Business. I guess I want to drill down a little bit. What specifically in your mind would be the argument for a pause today?

爱德华·劳伦斯（福克斯商业频道）：谢谢您，主席先生。我是福克斯商业频道的爱德华·劳伦斯。我想再深入问一点：在您看来，今天暂停行动的理由具体是什么？

沃什主席：So I wouldn't characterize what we did is anything like a pause. I would characterize what we did as a rigorous review of the economic situation. I would characterize what we did as a review of the big, hard questions, and I'd characterize it as a view of what our own homework is, to try to resolve those questions and the period ahead.If you were to try to force a description that this was a pause, I would say financial market prices would take the other side of that. Financial market prices, in this intervening period, they didn't pause. They reacted to the inflation data in one direction, strong economic growth in the other direction, and nominal and real rates went up. Did the Fed take an explicit change in its policy rate today? No, but I think that's the beginning of the story, not the end of the story.

沃什主席：我不会把我们今天所做的事描述成"暂停"。我会把它描述成对经济形势的一次严格审视；描述成对那些重大而困难的问题的一次审视；也描述成对我们自己该做哪些功课、以便在未来一段时间解决这些问题的一次审视。如果非要把它硬说成是"暂停"，我会说金融市场价格会站在相反的一边。在这段间隔期里，金融市场价格并没有暂停。它们对通胀数据朝一个方向反应，对强劲的经济增长朝另一个方向反应，结果名义利率和实际利率都上去了。美联储今天是否明确改变了政策利率？没有。但我认为，这是故事的开头，不是故事的结尾。

爱德华：If I could, I did want to ask not forward guidance but looking forward, traditionally a Federal Reserve Chairman uses the Jackson Hole summit as a reset of monetary policy. How do you look at the speech you're going to make in August?

爱德华：请允许我再问一个——不是前瞻指引，而是着眼未来：传统上，美联储主席会把杰克逊霍尔会议当作货币政策的一次"重置"。您如何看待自己8月要发表的那篇讲话？

沃什主席：I look at it like a blank piece of paper right now. I have not begun consideration with the incredible team here what would go into that document. I think you've characterized it correctly. Historically, at least from my first tour of duty at the Fed to more recent periods it would be sort of a setting up speech more often than not, of what was going to be happening in the fall. I haven't made any judgments on that, but those are judgments we'll have to come to. If I could, in the high mountain air in Jackson, Wyoming, I'd like to also frame the big questions. There is a tendency, especially with the proliferation of meetings and press conferences, to get caught up in the myopic, did you do this by a quarter or do that? Ultimately, whether we deliver on price stability matters some. The decisions we make in six or seven or eight-week periods but they matter more, what are the big questions? What's really happening with productivity? What's really happening with demographics? What's really happening to the global economy amid the shocks? Haven't made a decision whether it's going to be a big picture speech or whether it's going to be a more traditional set-up for all of the action we're going to have between September and December. I will tell you one other thing that I am doing between now and Jackson Hole which is I'm checking with the task forces. My first principle of establishing a task force is find the best subject matter experts anywhere in the world and put them together, especially put them together with other people who might disagree with them. In the next couple of weeks, I'm going to be doing a check back in, giving them time to think hard about their agenda, their debate, their schedule and when they might be ready for primetime. I'll be doing a little bit of that checking and that may or may not inform anything I have to say in Jackson.

沃什主席：我现在把它看成一张白纸。我还没有和这里这支了不起的团队开始考虑那份讲稿里要写什么。

我认为你的描述是准确的。从历史上看——至少从我第一次在美联储任职到较近的时期——那往往是一篇为秋季即将发生的事做铺垫的讲话。我还没有就此作出任何判断，但这些判断我们迟早要作。

如果可以的话，在怀俄明州杰克逊的高山空气里，我还想把那些大问题摆出来。尤其是在会议和发布会如此密集的当下，人们容易陷入短视：你这次是不是动了25个基点？

归根结底，我们能否兑现价格稳定，是重要的；我们在六周、七周或八周里作出的决定也有分量，但更重要的是：大问题是什么？生产率究竟在发生什么？人口结构究竟在发生什么？在诸多冲击之下，全球经济究竟在发生什么？我还没决定这会是一篇宏观视野的讲话，还是一篇更传统的、为9月到12月各项行动作铺垫的讲话。

我还可以告诉你，从现在到杰克逊霍尔之间我要做的另一件事，是去了解各工作组的进展。我设立工作组的首要原则，是在全世界范围内找到最优秀的领域专家，把他们凑在一起——尤其是要把他们和可能与之意见相左的人凑在一起。

未来几周我会去了解进展，给他们时间认真思考他们的议程、他们的争论、他们的时间表，以及他们何时能拿出成果。我会做一些这样的了解，这可能会、也可能不会影响我在杰克逊要讲的内容。

主持人：Nick.
主持人：请尼克提问。

尼克·蒂米劳斯（《华尔街日报》）：Nick Timiraos, the "Wall Street Journal." Chairman Warsh, I want to follow-up on Colby's question, about policy transmission. You've said there's no cruel choice between stable prices and full employment. Rates bring inflation down by cooling demand. It's generally thought that can show up in the labor market. If that's not the channel you're relying on, what is?

尼克·蒂米劳斯（《华尔街日报》）：我是《华尔街日报》的尼克·蒂米劳斯。沃什主席，我想接着科尔比关于政策传导的问题追问。您说过，在价格稳定与充分就业之间不存在残酷的取舍。加息是通过给需求降温来压低通胀的，人们普遍认为这会体现在劳动力市场上。如果这不是您所依赖的渠道，那渠道是什么？

沃什主席：So let me go back to first principles, Nick. I don't believe that either part of our mandate is generally at war with the other part. I do not believe that price stability and full employment is an either/or proposition. There have been policymakers over the last several generations, who have thought there is a strict trade-off there. That isn't my judgment. In fact, my judgment is if and when we deliver on our remit, we're going to be satisfying both prongs. We're going to have price stability and full employment and in fact, if you want to do the most harm to the labor markets, you would run a period of high inflation that's variable, such that employers, businesses, wouldn't really know what's going on. So I think the two parts of our mandate are equally important. We have no legislative orphans here. We've been talking mostly about price stability because we're doing pretty well collectively as a country, as policymakers on the full employment side, but we're doing considerably less well on prices. That's why we described them as elevated and that's what's taking most of our discussion. In terms of transmission mechanisms of monetary policy, I think different tools work through different transmission mechanisms. The interest rates work through lending channels and credit channels, maybe confidence channels and foreign-exchange. The balance sheet probably works through some other channels like signaling and portfolio balance. We're keeping full abreast of all these tools in making policy but if the suggestion is somehow we're going to be fine tuning aggregate demand so it catches supply, that's not my mental model. I don't think we're great in the fine tuning business. We're trying to get supply and demand in broad order but really what we're doing as we sit here today at this press conference, is I think we've got a reasonable sense of what aggregate demand looks like in this economy. We're inferring aggregate supply. We're making a judgment about what productivity is, and in some sense, there's a race between supply and demand and the surge in business CapEx, around AI, is making that calculation a little harder to judge, but in the period ahead we'll be trying to judge just that.

沃什主席：尼克，让我回到第一性原理。我不认为我们双重使命中的任何一半，通常会与另一半交战。我不认为价格稳定与充分就业是一个二选一的取舍命题。过去几代人中，确实有政策制定者认为二者之间存在严格的取舍关系。那不是我的判断。事实上，我的判断是：当我们真正兑现职责时，我们会同时满足这两个方面。我们会既有价格稳定，也有充分就业。事实上，如果你想对劳动力市场造成最大的伤害，那就搞出一段高企且波动不定的通胀，让雇主、让企业根本搞不清状况。

所以我认为，双重使命的两个部分同等重要。这里没有被立法遗忘的"孤儿"。我们之所以主要在谈价格稳定，是因为作为一个国家、作为政策制定者，我们在充分就业这一侧集体表现得相当不错，而在价格这一侧则明显做得差不少。这就是为什么我们把通胀形容为"高企"，也是为什么它占据了我们大部分的讨论。

至于货币政策的传导机制，我认为不同的工具通过不同的传导机制起作用。利率通过贷款渠道和信贷渠道起作用，也许还有信心渠道和汇率渠道。资产负债表大概通过另一些渠道起作用，比如信号效应和资产组合平衡效应。我们在制定政策时对所有这些工具都保持充分掌握。但如果言下之意是我们要去微调总需求、让它去追上总供给，那不是我的思维模型。我不认为我们擅长微调这门生意。

我们努力让供求大体归位。而今天坐在这场发布会上，我们真正在做的是：我认为我们对这个经济体的总需求已经有了合理的把握，我们在推断总供给，我们在判断生产率是多少。从某种意义上说，供给与需求之间存在一场赛跑，而围绕人工智能的企业资本开支激增，让这个计算变得更难判断了。但在未来一段时间里，我们要努力判断的正是这件事。

尼克：If I could ask, where exactly was the disagreement today? Was it about the inflation forecast or was it something more around the risks, the tactics?

尼克：能否请问，今天的分歧究竟出在哪里？是关于通胀预测，还是更多关于风险和策略？

沃什主席：So I'll let the dissenters speak for themselves. The way I heard it over the last two days was overwhelming agreement on objectives and authority and commitment. I didn't hear anybody walking away from it. The judgments as to how best to achieve the price stability, that was probably the question we're trying to answer. What's the best move? What's the best strategy? What's the best way to achieve it? And a second question that was asked is when do we need to make those harder calls? When do we need to make those decisions, and like I said to one of your colleagues, I was comforted that markets in the intermeeting period weren't reacting to us, they weren't reacting to dots or to speeches. They appeared more than ever to be reacting to real time events so they're gauging themselves how restrictive the Treasury curve should be and that I think has been a useful development. We don't endorse any particular market move but I'd also suggest we observe them with keen interest.

沃什主席：我会让持异议者自己说话。就我这两天听到的情况，在目标、授权和承诺上是压倒性的一致。我没有听到任何人打退堂鼓。

分歧大概在于：如何才能最好地实现价格稳定？这正是我们试图回答的问题。最好的一步棋是什么？最好的策略是什么？实现它的最佳途径是什么？另外还有第二个问题：我们需要在什么时候作出那些更艰难的抉择？我们需要在什么时候作决定？就像我对你的一位同行说过的，让我感到欣慰的是，在两次会议之间，市场并不是在对我们作反应，不是在对点阵图或讲话作反应。

它们比以往任何时候都更像是在对实时事件作反应——它们在自行判断国债收益率曲线应该有多大的限制性。我认为这是一个有益的进展。我们不为任何特定的市场走势背书，但我也要说，我们带着浓厚的兴趣观察它们。

珍娜（彭博社）：Following up on that, there was more uncertainty in the markets about what the Fed would do at this meeting. To some extent you might think that's what you want to see but my question is, is there a point at which you would not want to surprise the markets if they were pricing in something with higher certainty that is opposite of what you were intending to do? What are the risks that you see associated with that?

珍娜（彭博社）：接着这个问题。市场对美联储在这次会议上会做什么，不确定性更大了。某种程度上，您可能认为这正是您希望看到的。但我的问题是：如果市场以较高的确定性定价了某个与您意图相反的结果，是否存在一个临界点，让您不愿意给市场制造意外？您认为这其中有哪些风险？

沃什主席：Yes, so it's a good question. Surprise is not the objective function. Surprise is not what we're solving for. We have a clear North Star. What we're solving for is how to make the best decisions. Almost everything else should be in service to that goal. By not spoon feeding markets. By not previewing our decisions. By not sort of giving nudges and leans, my colleagues and I have found in the intermeeting period, what we're getting is the views from a very accomplished economist. That's the internals of financial markets, instead of just repeating or echoing what we're saying back to us, they're giving us somewhat, not perfect, their own judgment. So surprises are not the objective, but at the same time, I would say we didn't come into this meeting feeling constrained by the full range of alternatives we had in front of us.

沃什主席：好的，这是个好问题。制造意外并不是我们的目标函数，我们求解的不是"意外"。我们有一颗清晰的北极星。我们求解的是：如何作出最好的决定。其他几乎所有事情都应该服务于这个目标。

不给市场喂饭吃，不预告我们的决定，不去给出暗示和倾向——我和同事们发现，在两次会议之间的这段时间，我们得到的是一位极为老练的经济学家的观点，那就是金融市场的内部结构。它们不再只是把我们说过的话重复或回声般地反馈给我们，而是给了我们它们自己的判断——不完美，但确实是它们自己的。

所以意外不是目的。但与此同时，我要说，我们走进这次会议时，并没有觉得摆在面前的全部备选方案受到了任何束缚。

提问者：So some of your peers have continued to discuss how they think about policy decisions and if you don't offer your reaction, or your way of thinking about it, how concerned are you that you're ceding control of the narrative?

提问者：您的一些同僚仍在继续谈论他们如何思考政策决定。如果您不给出自己的反应函数、不说明您的思考方式，您有多担心自己正在把叙事的主导权拱手让人？

沃什主席：So not very concerned. That's a short answer to the question. When some people that follow the Fed say, well, we don't want your forecast. We just want your reaction function. Part of me, what I hear is what we really want is your forecast, what we really want is your dot. In terms of your reaction function, let me disabuse people of your question that may or may not be real and be out there. Any Central Banker, especially a Central Banker where the labor markets are more or less at equilibrium. Any Central Banker, when he or she sees underlying inflation moving higher, he or she is more inclined to tighten policy.

Again, when you've achieved the other side of your mandate and you see underlying inflation falling, he's more inclined to loosen policy. That's my reaction function and I don't suspect it will cause people to not continue to pry for more because the truth is, for a very long time, in a lot of countries, coming out of the 2008 crisis, we were in crisis mode, we were purposely providing a lot of information, trying to provide a lot of assurance, trying to tell people exactly what we're going to do.

Offering forward guidance with clarity as if we're tying our own hands behind our back. Well, in crisis mode that strikes me as a very prudent policy but in more benign conditions it strikes me as worth revisiting, but markets and market participants and reporters have learned to devour all that information, so I take seriously that the pullback of forward guidance requires some transition. Reform isn't easy but our general judgment is going to help us make better decisions and in so doing satisfy our remit.

沃什主席：不太担心。这就是简短的回答。当一些关注美联储的人说"我们不要你的预测，我们只要你的反应函数"时，我心里听到的其实是：我们真正想要的就是你的预测，我们真正想要的就是你的那个点。至于反应函数，让我来消除你问题里那种或真或假、流传在外的疑虑。任何央行官员——尤其是在劳动力市场大体处于均衡状态时的央行官员——只要他或她看到潜在通胀在上行，就会更倾向于收紧政策。

同样，当使命的另一侧已经实现、而你看到潜在通胀在下行时，他就会更倾向于放松政策。这就是我的反应函数。我并不指望这能让人们不再刨根问底，因为事实是：在很长一段时间里，在许多国家，自2008年危机之后我们一直处于危机模式，我们刻意提供大量信息，努力提供大量保证，努力告诉人们我们究竟要做什么。

清清楚楚地提供前瞻指引，就好像把自己的手反绑在背后。在危机模式下，我认为这是非常审慎的政策；但在更为温和的环境下，我认为值得重新审视。不过市场、市场参与者和记者们已经习惯于吞下所有这些信息，所以我很认真地看待一点：收回前瞻指引需要一个过渡期。改革并不容易，但我们总体的判断是，这将帮助我们作出更好的决定，并由此兑现我们的职责。

主持人：Paul.
主持人：请保罗提问。

保罗：Thank you. When you talk about the 2% inflation target, what measure are you relying on?

保罗：谢谢。当您谈到2%的通胀目标时，您依据的是哪一个指标？

沃什主席：So I'll give two answers, first let me give the proper standard answer. The Federal Reserve every January outlines a statement of purposes and strategy and in that strategy document which I believe was dated January of this year, it describes a measure of PCE inflation as the objective function there.

I have enough, so that's our number, we're sticking with it. Who knows come after next January what we might say about strategy. I suspect the task forces might have something to add, but I'll say this. Some version of the Lucas critique, some version of Goodhart's law in economics should remind us that when we talk about measures of inflation or something else, and we describe those measures as being consistent with their objectives we might make them such as they are not very good measures or very good objectives.

Broadly if you said to me standing in front of you, I abide fully by the strategy document, we're going to deliver 2% inflation and not a whisper more, but to achieve that, I'm looking at a broader set of inflation data than PCE. So without sort of fully revealing my cards, I'm trying to understand like my colleagues what's the underlying generalized change in prices that are happening in the economy. It is not a perfect science. I might have said 42 days ago, I've got a task force for that, but we have a data project that's trying to look and see whether we can't separate the noise from the signal and so if you would hear a message from me, yes, I care about what the PCE prints are. I care about what the contributions are from CPI and everything else but my lens is broader than that, even though the remit is quite narrow.

沃什主席：我给两个答案，先说标准的、正式的那个。

美联储每年1月都会发布一份关于长期目标与货币政策策略的声明。在那份策略文件里——我记得日期是今年1月——它把PCE通胀指标描述为目标函数。

这就够了，那是我们的数字，我们坚持它。至于明年1月之后我们对策略会怎么说，谁知道呢。我猜工作组可能会有所补充。但我要说这么一点：某种版本的卢卡斯批判、某种版本的经济学中的古德哈特定律应当提醒我们：当我们谈论通胀或其他事物的度量指标，并把这些指标描述为与目标相一致时，我们可能反而会把它们变成不那么好的指标、或不那么好的目标。

大体上说，如果你站在我面前问我：我完全遵守那份策略文件，我们将实现2%的通胀，一丝一毫也不能多。但为了实现它，我关注的通胀数据比PCE更广。所以，在不完全亮出底牌的前提下：我和同事们一样，努力理解这个经济体中正在发生的、普遍性的潜在物价变化。这不是一门精确的科学。42天前我大概会说，我为此设了一个工作组；而我们确实有一个数据项目，正试图看看能不能把噪音从信号中分离出来。所以如果你想从我这里听到一个信息，那就是：是的，我在意PCE的读数，我在意CPI以及其他一切的分项贡献，但我的视角比这更宽——尽管我们的法定职责相当窄。

主持人：Mike McKee?
主持人：迈克·麦基？

迈克尔·麦基（彭博社）：Michael McKee from Bloomberg Radio and Television. I'm struggling a little bit with some of what you've said today and maybe you can help clarify this. You've said over and over again that your job is to bring down prices, to get prices stable, to hit your target and that you will hit your target. The market says you're not there yet because they've raised rates, but all you've talked about today is talking about it and it's not like members of the Committee weren't there before you talking about it so I guess what the American people might be asking is, what are you waiting for?

迈克尔·麦基（彭博社）：我是彭博广播电视的迈克尔·麦基。您今天说的一些话我有点难以理解，也许您可以帮忙澄清。

您一遍又一遍地说，您的工作是压低物价、让物价稳定、实现目标，而且您一定会实现目标。市场说您还没做到，因为它们已经把利率推高了。但您今天谈的全都是"在讨论这件事"，而且在您到任之前，委员会的成员们也不是没在讨论。所以我想美国民众可能会问：您还在等什么？

沃什主席：Believe it or not, this press conference is not all I've done today. We have spent an inordinate amount of time in the last two days, two weeks, looking at our monetary policy strategy, evaluating our tools, thinking hard about the sources of data that we have at our disposal, and we wish we had. We've also thought hard about the period ahead. What among these questions will be answered, with more clarity, certainly not certainty. So the decision we've made today, the discussion we had in that room, was the farthest thing from inertia I can imagine. As a point estimate at this very moment and a choice between two alternatives, you heard the results of it, but I would tell you that this discussion was far more robust and our thinking about how best to achieve that target is advanced and over the coming months I expect it to be advanced much more significantly.

If you were to sort of, if I were to steal a follow-up question, you won't be giving it up. If I were to steal a follow-up question, well what's the world think about what you've done? I would again reiterate. What we do isn't just about what we say. It's not just about what we do. We're in the performance business and so if I look at the Treasury curve, if I look at the dollar, if I look at a lot of things that are internals inside of financial markets, I think what they're broadly saying is, that this committee does own it. It has the credibility to deliver it, and they believe, like I do, that we will, but I don't want to leave you with a mistaken impression.

We've got no magic wand. This isn't something that we're going to be able to carry out in days or weeks but we're going to deliver on the responsibility that Congress gave us and today's meeting and the preparation for today's meeting was an important step towards that destination.

沃什主席：信不信由你，这场发布会并不是我今天做的全部事情。

在过去两天、过去两周里，我们花了大量的时间审视我们的货币政策策略，评估我们的工具，认真思考我们手头拥有的数据来源、以及我们希望能拥有的数据来源。

我们也认真思考了未来一段时间：这些问题中哪些会得到更清晰——当然不是确定无疑——的答案。所以我们今天作出的决定、我们在那间会议室里进行的讨论，是我所能想象的与"惯性"相距最远的东西。

作为此时此刻的一个点估计、作为两个备选方案之间的一次选择，你们听到了结果。但我要告诉你，这场讨论要充实得多，我们关于如何最好地实现那个目标的思考是有推进的，而在接下来的几个月里，我预计它会有更大幅度的推进。

如果——如果我替你抢一个追问的话（你大概也不会让给我）——如果我替你抢一个追问：那么世界怎么看你们所做的事？我还是要重申：我们的作为，不只关乎我们说了什么，也不只关乎我们做了什么。我们干的是"交付业绩"这一行。所以，如果我看国债收益率曲线，如果我看美元，如果我看金融市场内部的许多指标，我认为它们大体上在说：这个委员会确实扛起了责任，它具备兑现的公信力，而且它们和我一样相信我们会做到。但我不想给你留下一个错误印象：

我们没有魔法棒。这不是几天或几周就能完成的事。但我们会兑现国会赋予我们的责任，而今天的会议以及为今天会议所做的准备，是通往那个目的地的重要一步。

迈克尔：I'd like to follow-up on the task forces as well and ask, what vetting did you do of the people that you appointed to the task forces, in particular, given Marc Andreessen's political spending, $25 million in just the past year to back candidates who oppose stricter AI regulation. How could the public be confident that a committee he co-chairs will provide an independent assessment of AI's economic effects rather than one aligned with the interest of the AI industry?

迈克尔：我也想就工作组追问一下：您对被任命进工作组的人员做了怎样的审查？特别是考虑到马克·安德森的政治支出——仅过去一年就有2500万美元用于支持反对更严格人工智能监管的候选人。公众怎么能相信，由他共同主持的委员会会对人工智能的经济影响作出独立评估，而不是一份与人工智能行业利益相一致的评估？

沃什主席：So I selected 15 incredible subject matter experts to tackle five of the most important questions that if we get the answers right, we're going to do a far-better job in delivering and if we get the answers wrong, we have a problem.

The comfort that I can give you and your listeners is we're the decision makers. The Chairman of the Board of the Federal Reserve and the members of the board and the FOMC, we will be the consumers of the outputs from five different committees.

The judgments we're making will be informed by, but not at all determined by these outside groups. My theory of the case in establishing the task forces were to pick people with extraordinary talent, depth of expertise and a divergence inside every committee so they too can have a family fight.

This is not outsourcing to people that aren't known and haven't been vetted. This is seeing whether new ideas can catalyze a broader, better, more informed discussion inside the room, and I'm very confident that we're going to be able to do that. I am impressed by the credentials of these 15 people and full disclosure, I've known almost all of them for a very long time and I think they're going to give their best views on the subject but ultimately these are decisions we're going to make and we're accountable to our oversight committees and to the remit Congress gave us to deliver.

沃什主席：我挑选了15位了不起的领域专家，来攻克五个最重要的问题——这些问题如果答对了，我们兑现职责的表现会好得多；如果答错了，我们就有麻烦。我能给你和你的听众的一个宽慰是：我们才是决策者。美联储理事会主席、理事会成员和FOMC，我们是这五个不同委员会产出成果的"消费者"。

我们所作的判断会参考这些外部小组的意见，但绝不会由它们决定。我设立工作组的思路是：挑选才华出众、专业深厚的人，并让每个委员会内部存在分歧，这样他们也能来一场"家庭内战"。

这不是把工作外包给不为人知、未经审查的人。这是要看看新的想法能否催化会议室内部更广泛、更好、更有见识的讨论，我非常有信心我们能做到这一点。这15个人的履历令我印象深刻。也如实相告：其中几乎所有人我都认识很久了。我认为他们会就相关议题给出他们最好的见解。但归根结底，决定要由我们来作，我们要对国会的监督委员会负责，要对国会赋予我们的职责负责。

安（路透社）：Hi, Ann with Reuters, nice to see you again. So I need a little help here too. You've said repeatedly, you have no tolerance for inflation and yet, we are seeing above-target inflation repeatedly for five years and through your term so far, and sure you have no magic wand, but you have not taken action.

You just gave us a little peek at your reaction function as well. You said that if underlying inflation is rising, that you would tend to think that you might need to tighten, and with the exception of the most recent inflation print, that is what we've been seeing, so could you explain what you mean by no tolerance for inflation and what you plan to do about it?

安（路透社）：您好，我是路透社的安，很高兴又见面了。

我这里也需要一点帮助。您反复说过，您对通胀零容忍。然而我们已经连续五年看到通胀高于目标，在您任内到目前为止也是如此。当然，您没有魔法棒，但您也没有采取行动。

您刚才还向我们透露了一点您的反应函数：您说如果潜在通胀在上升，您会倾向于认为可能需要收紧。而除了最近一次通胀数据之外，我们看到的一直就是这种情况。所以能否请您解释一下，"对通胀零容忍"是什么意思，以及您打算为此做什么？

沃什主席：Sure, so, Ann, I hear from you what I hear more broadly from households and businesses. Impatience. Deliver it already. This is not an excuse. This is a fact. This FOMC, this board has been in business for eight and a half weeks. The patience, the impatience that households and businesses feel have been going on for 63 months. We are on-the-job, we will deliver, we are focused like a laser on making sure we can do it, but the suggestion that we're going to be able to do it with our magic wand is one I want to disabuse you and everyone else of, but the discussion the last two days give me more confidence even than I had eight and a half weeks ago.

This team that we have at the FOMC, the support that we have from board staff, and the new hard questions we're asking, we need to resolve those and as we resolve those questions get smarter on those, we're going to deliver on the remit.

You don't have to take my word for it. If you look broadly at market prices, they are certainly not saying "all clear" but they are working in concert to keep us on our toes and they have tightened financial conditions in this intermeeting period and that has given us, that has provided us some comfort that we've got the ability and capability to deliver.

沃什主席：当然。安，我从你这里听到的，正是我从家庭和企业那里更广泛听到的：不耐烦。赶紧把它兑现吧。这不是借口，这是事实。这届FOMC、这届理事会开张才八周半。而家庭和企业所感受到的耐心与不耐烦，已经持续了63个月。

我们在岗位上，我们会兑现，我们像激光一样聚焦于确保我们能做到。但如果暗示我们能靠一根魔法棒做到，我要打消你和所有人的这个念头。不过过去两天的讨论，让我比八周半前更有信心。

我们在FOMC拥有的这支队伍、理事会工作人员给予的支持、以及我们正在提出的那些新的难题——我们需要解决它们；随着我们解决这些问题、在这些问题上变得更加明智，我们就会兑现我们的职责。你不必只听我一面之词。如果你放眼市场价格，它们当然没有在说"警报解除"，但它们正在协同作用，让我们保持警醒。在这段会议间隔期内，它们已经收紧了金融条件，这给了我们一些宽慰：我们有能力、也有本事把事情办成。

安：And is your read, or your, I guess, faith in markets' ability to sort of make a judgment and then you to take signal from that judgment, is that — how does that affect you when you come up on the September meeting and markets are seeing a near-100% chance of a rate hike, as they see now. How does that feed into your decision-making and your thinking?

安：那么，您对市场作出判断、您再从该判断中读取信号这种能力的信任——当9月会议临近、而市场像现在这样认为加息概率接近100%时，这会如何影响您？它如何进入您的决策和思考？

沃什主席：So we're not going to be constrained by market prices. We're not going to be constrained or take verbatim from what the market's doing but I think it's useful, Ann, to understand that markets can be a very good source of information. Not a determining source, not a perfect source, but if we're trying to land the plane and deliver 2% inflation, and we take a very useful source of information and we get it all fogged up by giving it our own forecast, by providing rolling commentary, I can assure you that we're going to have less information, less ability to land the plane successfully, and deliver price stability. We're just trying to make sure that that source of information is as direct and unfiltered as possible.

It isn't to the exclusion of data sources and opinions and other surveys, but if you're hearing from me, we want to make sure we're getting a better source of information. I think in a relatively short time we are.

沃什主席：我们不会被市场价格所束缚。我们不会受制于市场的举动，也不会照单全收。但安，我认为有一点很有用，就是理解到：市场可以是一个非常好的信息来源。不是决定性的来源，也不是完美的来源。但如果我们要把飞机降落、实现2%的通胀，而我们却把一个非常有用的信息来源，用我们自己的预测、用滚动不断的评论把它搅得一片雾蒙蒙，我可以向你保证，我们掌握的信息会更少，成功降落、实现价格稳定的能力会更弱。我们只是想确保这个信息来源尽可能直接、尽可能不被过滤。

这并不排斥数据来源、各种观点和其他调查。但如果你要听我怎么说：我们希望确保自己获得一个更好的信息来源。我认为在相当短的时间里，我们做到了。

主持人：We'll go to Brian Cheung for the last question.
主持人：最后一个问题请布莱恩·张提问。

布莱恩·张（NBC新闻）：Hey, Chairman Warsh, Brian Cheung with NBC News. So you said you'd be open to having press conferences when there's news to make so today no change to rates, no forward guidance, for the average household I guess, what was the news today?

布莱恩·张（NBC新闻）：您好，沃什主席，我是NBC新闻的布莱恩·张。您说过，只要有新闻可讲，您就愿意开新闻发布会。那么今天利率没有变化，也没有前瞻性指引——对普通家庭来说，今天的新闻是什么？

沃什主席：So apparently, it was news that I had a press conference. Let me just see if I can offer some clarity on that. Between now and year-end, my predecessors and the Federal Reserve committed to press conferences this year, I'm committing to press conferences this year. That might be news to the people in this room and of no particular interest to your viewers and your readers back at home.

What I can offer as assurance is that the Fed's on the case. That this Fed Chairman feels better about this board and this committee's ability to deliver than I did when I showed up here on the first day and I showed up pretty confident. I've been heartened by the reception that I received. No doubt in some of your commentaries today, you'll talk about a divided Federal Reserve. That's not the feeling I felt the last couple of days and the couple days before it.

What I felt is a group of professionals. All with different perspectives, different views, different judgments but eager to roll up their sleeves and have a family fight and eager to reform the way in which the Fed does policy. A keenness and open-mindedness and curiosity about that so we have a far better chance to deliver on the remit that Congress gave us and so I want to leave you with the optimism of a new Central Banker that we're committed as ever to deliver and to offer an assurance we will. Thank you, all very much.

沃什主席：看来，"我开了一场新闻发布会"本身就是新闻。

让我试着把这件事说清楚一点。从现在到年底，我的前任们和美联储承诺了今年要开的这些发布会，我也承诺今年要开这些发布会。这对在座各位来说也许算新闻，但对家里的观众和读者而言恐怕没什么特别的兴趣。

我能提供的保证是：美联储正在办这件事。这位美联储主席对本届理事会和本届委员会兑现能力的感受，比我到任第一天时更好——而我到任那天已经相当有信心了。

我受到的接纳令我倍感鼓舞。毫无疑问，在今天你们的一些评论里，会谈到一个分裂的美联储。那不是我过去这两天、以及此前几天所感受到的。

我感受到的是一群专业人士：各有不同的视角、不同的看法、不同的判断，但都急于卷起袖子来一场"家庭内战"，也急于改革美联储制定政策的方式。这份热忱、开放的心态和好奇心，让我们有大得多的机会去兑现国会赋予我们的职责。所以我想留给各位的，是一位新任央行官员的乐观：我们一如既往地承诺去兑现，并保证我们会做到。非常感谢大家。